proofpage_business_context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses that only human-approved context is returned, stale context is blocked, source quotes are included, and certain actions are impossible. It still omits permission requirements, error behavior, rate limits, and detailed return behavior, leaving significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds a constraint or boundary, though 'Treat reference/customer material separately' is slightly cryptic without naming the relevant tool or material type more concretely. Overall it is efficient with little waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description gives a usable behavioral overview and hints at return content with 'source quotes.' However, it does not explain profile_id, does not clarify return shape, and lacks explicit sibling routing. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage and the description never mentions profile_id. The phrase 'business context' weakly implies that the required parameter identifies a business profile, but it does not explain the parameter's meaning, format, or scope. With one required undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: retrieve human-approved business context with source quotes. It also states key constraints such as blocking stale context and separating reference/customer material. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like proofpage_get_context or proofpage_business_profiles, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through exclusions: reference/customer material should be handled separately, and the tool cannot approve, train models, or change account settings. However, it does not name an alternative tool or explicitly state when to use this instead of proofpage_get_context or proofpage_business_profiles. The guidance is present but requires inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.